Over the years the United States has been subjected to countless explanations of the teachings of Islam, and there have always been two opposing sides discussing it. On the one hand certain people advocate the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, while on the other hand other people detail the evidence that Islam is a religion of violence and intolerance. Many of those who believe that Islam is peaceful are people whose agenda deals with creating a new kind of morality for a new world order without Christian values, or they are woefully uninformed. If uninformed or not, these people do not want to believe that any religion or culture can be good or evil, right or wrong, no matter what, thus validating other religions in the struggle to neutralize or destroy Christianity. Sadly, these groups of people come from the so-called Christian nations in west Europe and North America, and they are called by many names (peaceniks, liberals, progressives, centrists, communists, socialists, fascists, atheists, anarchists, etc.), though they are all part of the religious-social belief system of Nihilism. They believe that there is no absolute truth, that truth is totally relative since each religion and culture has its own version of the truth; therefore it is evil and wrong to judge any person or belief. However, the hypocrisies of such a belief can be seen by its maintaining that there is no truth, yet maintaining a truth that there is no truth; as well as maintaining the idea that judging other beliefs is wrong, yet judging those who disagree with this idea. This is absurd. But the people who assert that Islam is a violent religion are those who see and even experience the violence and call it for what it is. Islam has never been able to grow and survive without war, deception, lies, fear, self-delusion, and absurdity. This can only be observed by accepting a difference between right and wrong, good and evil, without blindly asserting that there are more "gray areas" and "complex issues" in the arguments, which are only designed to divert attention from and to shirk responsibilities in making correct moral judgements.

The belief that there can be no evil religion in the world is an extension of the idea that there can be no evil person on earth, just good people who do bad things. According to certain segments of Nihilism, all religions and people are good, but some of them happen to do a few bad things. This means that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and many other genocidal maniacs and beliefs are basically from good people who happen to have a psychological addiction that has been ascribed as evil. Thus, defining good and evil is morally offensive to all Nihilists and their sympathizers, since such a moral tradition comes from Christianity. Nihilists do not want behavior and people judged by Christian values; they want them judged by non-religious, so-called objective mental doctors. By doing this, they hope to neutralize and eliminate all signs of Christian effects on society and people. Nevertheless, their moral assessment of people, religions, and cultures as essentially good is already a moral judgement, thereby compounding their own absurdity.

In opposition to the imaginary world of Nihilists, the world has seen evil religions. Fascism and Communism, which are religions and are also the violent arm of the Nihilist religion, have annihilated more people than any other belief. Are we to say that these belief systems can be good? Jimmy Jones led a Christian cult of about 1000 people and demanded total submission to his teachings. Anyone who dissented was immediately abused and prevented from escaping. Even before he forced hundreds of his followers to commit suicide with him in Guyana, his teachings and ethics were totally immoral. He taught peace and love, but his tactics were mind control. Should we say that the Jones cult was nice and wonderful? The natives of Central America before Columbus and Cortez had practiced human sacrificing. Some of these people willingly gave their lives for these religions, but some of them were unwillingly sacrificed. Should this religion be considered peaceful? Head-hunting is part of some animist religions of Africa and New Guinea, Borneo, and other southeastern Asian islands. Even though the religion of head-hunting was generally peaceful and tolerant, with its adherents being some of the world's most gentle people, certain religious holidays demanded deception, lying, blatant murder, and wars as principal means of achieving spiritual strength; basically, chopping off heads for spiritual purposes was axiomatic to their beliefs. Should such religions be regarded as peaceful and valid? Simply because there are different standards of morality in the world, it does not mean that there is no single true standard of morality. There are different kinds of ice cream in the world, but it does not mean that ice cream does not exist. Since there can be such a thing as an evil and deceptive religion in the world, and since some religions have twisted basic standards of morality, can Islam be considered a good religion or an evil one? This question would not have to be raised if the philosophies advocating Islam as a peaceful religion were not so absurd.

One of the greatest differences between Christians and Muslims is this question of morality and ethics. Islam, like most other religions on earth, does have a high standard of morality which fits in with the moral standards of other cultures and religions. When one goes to mosques or talks with Muslims, this can be readily visible and openly heard. Peace, loving God and neighbor, doing good deeds, tolerating other religions, etc. are important external elements of Islam. This means that Islam is capable of being reformed into a peaceful and tolerant religion, however, its own Mohammedan traditions, its rejection of moral absolutes, and its moral and logical inconsistencies have prevented Muslim reformers for 1400 years from being too effective. Hence, the outward Muslim morality of peace and love only goes so far and follows no absolute method. This is because Islam teaches two standards of morality, two standards of truth, two standards of ethics. On the one hand Muslims preach peace and tolerance towards all people, while on the other hand Muslims oppress and afflict all non-Muslims under their dominance as a means of punishment for not converting to Islam. The Koran, Islam's holy book, makes this double standard quite clear, saying in chapter 9 verse 29, "Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day (Christians and Jews), who do not forbid what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute (the Jizyah tax) out of hand and are utterly subdued." This command from Allah to Mohammed has always been accepted in Islam as a forced tax on all Christians and Jews simply because these people breathe. It is not a tax based on income or production or wealth. It is a tax much like Hitler's initial economic punishment and confiscation of Jewish wealth in Germany in the 1930's just because they were Jewish. This Jizyah tax does not apply to any person who worships more than one god, since Islam teaches that all non-Muslims who worship paganism should be automatically executed or exiled from Muslim-dominated regions, as it is taught in the Koran, 9:5, "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters (pagan worshippers) wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy (become Muslims), allow them to go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful." Islam teaches that pagans have a choice- either submit to Islam or die, while Islam allows Christians and Jews to have an easier choice- either pay Jizyah taxes or die.

Now here is where the true art of absurdity is painted. Whereas the whole world under normal circumstances would condemn such Muslim activities as evil, imperialistic, and immoral- which was exactly what Mohammed was criticized for during his lifetime, until he had his critics murdered- Muslims consider these religious doctrines and practices not to be evil and corrupt. This is critical in understanding the differences between Muslims and Christians, indeed between Muslims and most respectable religions of the world. What most people perceive according to basic moral standards to be evil, Muslims do not necessarily see. This is not an exaggeration or a false interpretation of Islam because Muslims themselves are very proud of this heritage, though they do not admit that certain of their deeds and ideas are immoral. Hence, murder, genocide, economic oppression, forced conversions, tyranny, and crimes of all kinds can be accepted as righteous and holy if they are found in the Koran, in Mohammedan traditions, or to be responses to perceived threats to Islam's expansion. For example, in response to this question of Muslim ethics, the typical double standard of morality is summed up perfectly in a Muslim website still on line in the year 2003, on http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=166. Question: "Do you concur with the mainstream non-Muslim historians that Muslim rulers imposed Jizya (taxes) to oppress their non-Muslim subjects?" Answer: "Jizyah was not at the discretion of the Muslim rulers. It was rather a part of God's (Allah's) punishment for the rejection of His truth. Thus, in my opinion, Jizyah was not an 'oppression', but a part of the divine 'punishment', in the life of this world, for the rejection of God's (Allah's) truth." The Muslim oppression of non-Muslims is not denied by this Muslim apologist (because it cannot be), nor is it claimed to be anti-islamic (since it is clearly fundamental to Islam), but only the morality of it is twisted to appear holy and good. This answer to the question of Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims is an actual doctrine of Islam and the strict belief of all good Muslims. Persecution in a Muslim's mind can be accepted as a wonderful deed, not as oppression. Hence, good and evil, right and wrong are totally relative to every Muslim; that is, good and evil are completely arbitrary concepts, not at all inflexible or absolute divine realities for all creatures in Heaven and on earth to obey. Allah is therefore a god who does not have an unchanging ethical code for his people, except total submission to his arbitrary whims. Good and evil, right and wrong then are not accepted for what they are in objective reality, for these things to a Muslim depend on the people and situations involved. This twisting of morality and ethics is the main reason why it is so difficult for modern Westerners to comprehend if or not Islam is peaceful or absurd. In most other religions, persecution is regarded as immoral, no matter who is perpetrating such evil; but Muslims truly believe that oppressing non-Muslims is fair, peaceful, kind, good, holy, sacred, righteous, etc., simply because the Koran and Mohammed teach it. This is a great example of absurdist philosophy, and it is something that God Himself condemned in Isaiah 5:20, saying, "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; who make darkness light, and light darkness; who make bitter sweet, and sweet bitter!"

The non-Muslims who are suffering under Muslim domination because of the oppressive policies of the Koran and Mohammedan traditions in the Hadiths understand full well that these teachings come from Islam and not from some accidental cultural custom or from temporarily incompetent interpretations of the Koran and Islamic traditions. Non-Muslims despise Muslim persecution and they strongly believe that Islam is satanic because of what Mohammed had established, not because of disinformation. Therefore it is Islam that is the cause of the evil and immorality, not people who misunderstand Islam. For this reason, it is the Muslims who must prove that the evils of Islam are not fundamental doctrines, but the results of people distorting the true meanings of Islam, which they have not and cannot irrefutably do. The Koran and Mohammedan traditions cannot be reconciled with the universal standard of morality because Islam does not conform to this standard, just as head-hunting is incompatible with God's standard of peace and love. They are impossible to reconcile because the Muslims must prove that forcing non-Muslims to pay extra taxes is a sign of good will. It is the Muslims who must prove that forcing non-Muslims to cease building churches and temples is proof of freedom of religion. It is the Muslims who must prove that forcing most non-Muslims to live as second-class citizens, similar to the blacks in the United States during the years of Jim Crow laws, is a peaceful policy. It is the Muslims who must prove that killing all pagans is a defense of human rights. It is the Muslims who must prove that jihads are not imperialist methods. It is the Muslims who must prove that forcing non-Muslims never to speak their religion in public is evidence of free speech. It is the Muslims who must prove that forcing all non-Muslims to work in inferior jobs is proof of kind treatment. It is absurd to agree with Muslims that Islamic doctrines are not immoral just because Muslims say that they are not immoral. Non-Muslims living under Muslim domination experience Islamic doctrines every day and they know that Islam is an evil religion, yet many westerners who defend Islam ignore these witnesses and refuse to accept their testimonies. This too is absurd. Despite the evidence, Muslims insist on believing that their violent persecution of non-Muslims, which comes from documented Islamic sacred doctrines, is not only necessary and divine, but that it is also peaceful, fair, tolerant, and kind in some way. They have deluded themselves and deceived others into thinking that Islam's policies toward non-Muslims protects lives and promotes good morals. This again foments absurdity.

As simple observations make clear, Muslims refuse to interpret good and evil in the same way that most other religions and societies in the world do. This becomes blatantly obvious by looking at the life of Mohammed himself, the founder of Islam. Mohammed practiced terrorism, murder, extortion, deception, lying, warfare, theft, piracy, slavery, persecution, polygamy even beyond Muslim standards (Mohammed had 12 wives, even though Allah in the Koran commanded every other Muslim to have only 4), pedophilia (Mohammed married a 6-year old girl and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9), and various other sins, crimes, and evils, that even people in his day considered sickening. But Muslims literally see nothing evil or wrong in such behavior and attitudes. In fact, Muslims are proud of these stories from the Koran and Hadiths (which are sacred Muslim traditions considered genuine and almost equal in spiritual authority to the Koran, and thus are important for personal religious practice), and they loudly proclaim them to anyone who will listen. Whereas most objective readers or listeners of these Islamic beliefs regard them as evil acts of an evil prophet for an evil religion, Muslims are so sincere and consistent in stating that their religion is peaceful, that the casual observer may feel compelled to overlook such evil acts as results of temporary cultural errors or as accidental misinterpretations of Islam. This is also absurd thinking. These stories of Mohammed's immorality are considered genuine by Muslims, applicable for all generations of good Muslims to imitate, and conversely, as these stories relate, the people living in Mohammed's time recognized him and his beliefs to be evil and hypocritical (The Hadiths mention many critics of his moral ethics and of his so-called divine revelations). Plus, anyone who criticized him was murdered, executed, or exiled, unless they converted to Islam (and again, Muslims are proud of such Mohammedan persecution). And this has been the standard of practice for Muslims to this day. Anyone who criticizes Islam or Allah can be somewhat tolerated, but anyone who criticizes Mohammed is immediately in physical danger. Furthermore, anyone who actually rejects Islam and converts from it is also in physical danger, as Mohammed says in the Hadith of Bukari (which is a collection of Hadiths that all Muslims accept as genuine and spiritually authoritative), in his books called Kitaab al-Jihaad wal-Siyar, Kitaab istitabah al-Murtaddeen and Kitaab al-ai`tisaam bil-Kitaab wal-Sunnah, "Whoever changes his religion (Islam), kill him." But though Islam does teach that ex-Muslims can be killed, there is no total agreement on this dogma. Thus, the average punishment for any ex-Muslim is typically being disowned permanently by his family, and he will probably suffer some degree of persecution or exile from other Muslims, though death is still an acceptable option. So, Islam is not a religion that allows too much dissent or objection, and it is also a religion that allows tyranny and mafia tactics to be praised as morally sacred.

Such evidence of evil among a religion professing itself to be so peaceful and tolerant can make any discussion of Islam confusing for the casual observer. Admittedly, there is hypocrisy in all religions, even in Christianity. But the hypocrisy in the Koran or in Islam in general isn't the same as contradictory statements in the Bible and in Judaism or Christianity. The so-called contradictions of Judaism and Christianity deal with theological questions and some social issues that were perfectly normal in ancient times, yet were allowed to conform to God's heavenly moral standard in later generations. But with Islam, the contradictions deal with making personal decisions between receiving good treatment under Islam or bad treatment, peace or war, tolerance or persecution, criticism or execution, diplomacy or imperialism, truth or falsehood, submission or death, etc. There is no other choice and little flexibility. Islam teaches and practices both good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lie without hesitation or confusion, since they have created two different categories of morality- one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. For example, Muslims in Egypt have for 1400 years forced Christians there (about 10% of the population) to pay more taxes, cease building churches, live as second-class citizens, suffer more crime from Muslims, curtail free speech and freedom of religion, etc., since Islam demands that this be practiced. The Christians there, who are called Copts, consider such treatment evil, yet the Muslims insist that these Christians have free speech, have the same rights as all other Muslims, and are treated with peace and love. They see the persecution to be kind and considerate, even a gift. Hence, the double standard and denial of universal truths and reality. Also, the massacre of at least 1,000,000 Christians in Muslim Turkey between 1915-1922 means nothing and is absolutely denied by most Muslims. The massacre of at least 1,000,000 Christians in Muslim Sudan since 1985 is totally dismissed or is treated as a holy necessity by most Muslims. And the list goes on. If this were to happen to Muslims, they would be in a frenzy (Even imaginary evils against Islam cause many of them to become enraged!). The deluded defense and denial of an obvious double standard of morality and ethics among Muslims is total absurdity, yet it has prevailed wherever Muslims deal with non-Muslims, as in Israel, where Muslims complain about Jewish brutality, though they refuse to admit that almost all Islamic countries have been brutalizing non-Muslims for centuries and are still doing so.

One of the greater instances of Muslim absurdity is Islam's treatment of women. Women are forced to stay at home and cannot go in public without their husbands, suffer beatings by their husbands, submit to female circumcision, wear black veils and burkas in public, have little or no education, live as second-class citizens, and other cruelties from the Koran, Hadiths, and other sources. If Muslim men were forced by non-Muslims to suffer the same or similar abuse, they would consider it immoral and evil. Thanks to God, Islam has allowed some flexibility with women, since some Muslim countries have permitted women to live more freely; and the average Muslim man may not beat his wife. But there is still a lot of cruelty and brutality that Muslim women must endure. Nevertheless, some Muslim women do not see such treatment as evil, even when they are forced to suffer the brunt of Islamic brutality against them. Many Muslims, even women, find rationalizations to explain the cruelty and, because it promotes Islam, they see this bad treatment of women to be fair, kind, peaceful, etc. However, the fact that some Muslim women refuse to obey or fully conform to these Islamic rules for women suggests that there is much dissent and hatred for these doctrines. There is even a number of Muslim women who despise all the dogmas completely, especially the ones that are not specifically taught in the Koran and the Hadiths. Yet the cruelty of Muslim women has not been traditionally regarded as cruel by Muslims, hence more absurdity.

Another common example of the absurdity of Islam is their objection to the Catholic crusades. After the Catholics broke away from the original Christian Church in 1054, they began a series of crusades over a few centuries attacking Muslim territories near Israel (they even attacked Eastern Orthodox Christian lands), mostly in response to constant Muslim jihads against Christian countries, constant holocausts against Christians under Muslim domination, and to the assaults of European Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, despite promises of protection. But Muslims to this day use these crusades to prove how imperialist and evil Christians are, even though Christianity has never advocated or even hinted at allowing such attitudes and activity. On the other hand, Islam teaches the value and need for violent crusades against all non-Muslims for all of earth's history because the Koran and Hadiths teach this; and Islam even began as a crusade. Most of the territory now under Muslim domination was not won by peaceful means, as with most other religions, but by military force and persecution. Islam in theory continues as a crusade against the world. In fact, Islam can only survive by starting crusades and persecutions of its subjects- murdering innocent people, forcing conversions, preventing freedom of religion, enslaving non-Muslim children, etc.- in order to build a vast empire with as few non-Muslims as possible (India has suffered the worst holocaust in history, more than what the Jews in Nazi Europe suffered and more than what the Native Americans of North America and South America endured, though less than the mass murder sprees of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung). These are undeniable historical facts. Yet Muslims have an extremely difficult time seeing the hypocrisy of condemning the Catholic so-called imperialist crusades and yet praising the Muslim imperialist crusades. This again is typical Muslim philosophy. Muslims have the ability to correctly ascertain what is evil and wrong with other religions and societies, if or not these religions allow it, yet when Islam actually advocates the practice of the same or similar evils and wrongs, and Muslims then actually implement these policies, then it is suddenly not regarded as evil and wrong. This difficulty to maintain logical and moral consistency takes place because Islam preaches the absurdity of a double standard of logic and morality- peace for Muslims (which is called the Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam), and war for non-Muslims (which is called the Dar al-Harb, the House of War).

Even Islam's symbols are the crescent moon and the sword, representing Allah and perpetual violent Muslim victories against non-Muslims. Islam's peaceful teachings therefore apply to only one half of the Islamic method of converting the world, while violent Islam (which is not radical or extremist or anti-Islamic at all) is simply the other half. Muslims differentiate between these two standards by convincing themselves and others that the violent half of Islamic policy is always morally justifiable and used in self-defense, even when Muslims start wars and genocides against non-Muslims, or they say that the violence is caused by a false interpretation of the Koran or by a distortion of the facts. This is how they see it: Wherever Islam is victorious through violent means, the violence is explained to be a holy act of Allah according to the precepts of the Koran; though when Islam is defeated or fails or is made to look bad after starting any violence, Muslims suddenly become sanctimonious, proclaiming how the failure or bad publicity was caused by a false interpretation of the Koran's violent doctrines or by non-Muslim propagandists falsifying the facts. In the case of Bin Laden, for instance, Islam has become associated with terrorism once again, and so Muslims around the world have condemned the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001, since Islam is once more given some bad publicity. But instead of condemning Bin Laden, whose actions were done for the sake of empowering Islam according to the Koran's doctrines, Muslims around the world have convinced themselves that there is no evidence against Bin Laden to prove that he was guilty of murdering 4000 innocent people. In this way, Muslims are able to condemn violence done in the name of Islam without contradicting the Koran or condemning other Muslims who are simply obeying the Koran's terrorist doctrines. Similarly, Muslims will never admit to imperialism and constant holocausts against non-Muslims because they know that such acts are evil and that Islam actually promotes such activity. For this reason, they must always insist that throughout history every single violent crusade and persecution against non-Muslims was done in self-defense (What a record!). If they admit to even one of these atrocities as being morally unjustifiable, then Islam is proven to be evil. This is because Islam and the need to destroy all other religions by any means possible- peacefully, honestly, deceptively, violently, etc.- are concepts inseparably linked. Thus, Muslims are forced to blame any atrocities in the name of Islam on self-defense or false propaganda or renegade Muslim rulers or cultural errors or bad interpretations of the Koran (which of course still beg the question), rather than take responsibility for the Koran's doctrines of promoting atrocities against non-Muslims and actually reinterpret the Koran in practice, not in theory.

Muslim absurdity does not take place just with social issues. The Koran itself teaches things that every Muslim knows is false, and yet the Muslim does not accept such evidence of spiritual error as fraudulent. For instance, the Koran teaches in 5:73-75, 116 that the Christian Trinity consists of God, Mary, and Jesus. Allah, the Muslim god, is supposedly the one telling his people this information and Mohammed, who Muslims hail as the greatest spiritual mind of his time, both made this obvious mistake. Most Muslims today admit that Christians have never believed the Trinity to consist of God, Mary, and Jesus, but to be of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is undeniable. Thus, they have no decent explanation for this error in the Koran, which should mean that Islam is false, since Islam teaches that the Koran has no errors. Yet Muslims who notice this error are not at all fazed by this falsity, for they see it rather as a non-Muslim spiritual problem because these non-Muslims do not blindly accept the Koran as truth and instead insist on reminding people of this erroneous and flawed passage about the Trinity. This is similar to the statement in the Koran, in 9:30, where it claims that the Jews believe in Ezra as the son of God. Jews and Christians have no idea where this concept about Ezra came from. Muslims have their explanations, but again, they are absurd, since there is no reason why Mohammed should write this down unless he were given false information. Yet the question of if or not the Koran comes from the true God or from Satan is not the issue with Muslims, their anger is aimed more at people who keep reminding them of such errors in the Koran.

Muslim absurdity builds itself even more when the question of the Bible is raised. The Koran teaches that the Bible is the word of Allah (or God) and that Allah's words can never be destroyed or corrupted, as the Koran says in 10:94-95, where Allah tells Mohammed to learn from the Bible the truths of Islam. The Koran in 4:47 tells people to read the Bible and to believe its words as evidence supporting Mohammed and Islam. Yet the Koran in 2:11, 4:46, and 5:13 says that the Bible's contents were falsified by the Jews (and by implication the Christians also). As a result, Islam teaches that the Jews and Christians, who, even though they were not on the friendliest terms with each other, somehow perfectly conspired to alter the words of the Bible long before Islam even existed, so as to make it seem as though Mohammed and Islam are not prophecied and taught in the Bible, and then magically worked together to successfully destroy every single shred of evidence of a supposed original Bible. But even if all this were true (though there is no hint of evidence for this gigantic fanciful tale; indeed, there are vast amounts of evidence proving that the Bible has never been altered), why should the Koran tell Mohammed and all Muslims that they should read the Bible to learn the truths of Allah if it were already falsified? Why should the Koran say that the Bible is Allah's words and that his words cannot be altered by humans, and yet say that the Bible has been falsified? Muslims have difficulties explaining this massive contradiction of facts and doctrines without becoming absurd once again. This is because Muslims, even when they are forced to notice them, do not consider the Koran's contradictions to be problematic; instead they consider non-Muslim thinkers to be the problem for criticizing and finding spiritual errors in the Koran.

Muslim absurdity then expands even farther when the doctrine of the Trinity is explored. Christians believe that God is One in Three Persons. God speaks to His people as the Holy Spirit and His Word came to earth as a Man in order to save the world. This Man is Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary. Hence, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God perceived in Three Persons. Yet Muslims condemn such a doctrine because they claim it teaches that God is not one, but three gods. However, this does not deter Islam from establishing its own trinity, which Muslim theologians have discussed for centuries, though the average Muslim is totally unaware of this issue. The Koran in 43:1-2 says that the Koran is the eternal Book in Heaven, co-eternal with Allah. The Koran's idea of the Throne of Allah, as in 13:1-3, is also co-eternal with Allah (The Koran does not directly state this. The mention of Allah ascending his throne means that he can move and change positions, thus he cannot be perfectly one and unchanging. Muslims have been forced to accept the throne of Allah as eternal, lest admitting that Allah can change and therefore not be a perfect unity of one god). Muslims, who have been trained to despise the Christian Trinity, nevertheless have a trinity of their own consisting of Allah, the word of Allah (which became a book on earth having two natures- one heavenly and the other earthly- through the virginal Mohammed), and the throne of Allah. Muslims have never been able to explain how these three separate eternal entities in Heaven can co-exist as Allah, who, since he is supposed to be one, is not supposed to have any other thing co-existing eternally in addition to him, especially two inanimate objects- a book and a chair. Christians have been able to logically explain without contradiction how the Trinity can be One God. But Muslims have never been able to do the same thing with their own trinity, hence they are the ones believing in three gods. The absurdity of Islam is not so much in stating a trinity as in accusing and condemning Christians and other non-Muslims for doing things that Muslims themselves similarly believe and practice, yet deny.

Muslims cannot think logically because Mohammed never allowed Muslims to think too much, critically analyze the Koran, or even question its meanings, lest they see the absurdity and evils of Allah's supposed message and then convert to other religions. Many people learned this lesson the hard way. After Mohammed conquered Medina in the 7th century, he showed the world his version of tolerance, peace, love, and non-compulsion in religion by providing its citizens three choices- either convert to Islam, be expelled, or die. Asma bint Marwan was tired of Mohammed's constant immoral behavior and evil doctrines, so she wrote poems criticizing Mohammed and his teachings. When she was discovered, Mohammed said, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?" Umayr volunteered and that night he stabbed Asma to death while she was nursing her youngest child. The next day Mohammed praised Umayr, and the rest of Asma's family understood that they must convert to Islam or die. Soon after that, Abu Afak, who was 102 years old, became sickened by Mohammed's satanic religion and he also wrote poems criticizing Islam and Mohammed. Mohammed exclaimed, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" One of his henchman obeyed the call and that night ended the old man's life on earth. These and other stories like this come from the Hadiths, and all good Muslims believe these reports not only to be genuine and true, but also as holy examples for all Muslims to emulate. Such acceptance of pure evil is an important element behind Islamic philosophy, for it proves that little thinking and criticism are tolerated in Islam, and any non-Muslim who may be imagined as a threat to the honor of Islam and Mohammed may find themselves verbally and even physically assaulted. Though the Koran teaches Muslims never to physically attack Muslims and non-Muslims, except in self-defense, exceptions can be conveniently made, or somehow discovered, or rationalized away, for any individual, group, or national purpose. When enough Muslims and their religious leaders feel the need to imitate Mohammed's methods of ending any kind of opposition for the sake of supposedly protecting Islam from corruption and defeat, then there is even less hesitation to attack an enemy (This may occur verbally or physically, through verbal violence or jihad, depending on the situations and people involved). Much like the religious beliefs and mind control tactics of Jimmy Jones, who never allowed his followers to criticize and debate his beliefs and leadership, nor even escape his cult, Mohammed was a man who was willing to use any means, no matter how hypocritical and demonic, to protect his dogma and his control over the minds and lives of his enslaved subjects. Few Muslims even to this day are brave enough to publicly question Islam and Mohammed.

Despite the fact that Islam teaches in the Koran 2:256 that "there is absolutely no compulsion in religion," which has always been interpreted by Muslims to mean that no Muslim has the right to force or coerce by violence or persecution or oppression any non-Muslim, in order to make him convert to Islam, Muslims nevertheless use force and coercion to compel people or attempt to force them to become Muslims; which of course they do not morally see it that way. This is the Muslim art of absurdity, which is actually Islam's method of deception meant to persecute non-Muslims in every way possible until they become Muslims, all the while denying that there is persecution and deception going on, as well as accusing non-Muslims of doing all the persecuting and deceiving. The Koran and Hadiths may preach peace, love, and tolerance towards all non-Muslims, but what does the Koran mean by "peace, love, and tolerance"? What does Islam mean by the phrase 'no compusion in Islam'? Here's an example: When Mohammed conquered his last main enemy, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Mecca, Islamic tradition in the Hadiths (as quoted in Biography of the Prophet, part 4, by Ibn Hisham), a story that most Muslims proudly declare to be true, records Mohammed saying to Abu Sufyan, "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Mohammed is the apostle of Allah before your neck is cut off by the sword." This of course Abu Sufyan was compelled to do, and he became a Muslim. So when the Koran teaches Muslims never to use compulsion to get people to convert to Islam, what does "compulsion" mean? It can mean anything Muslim doctrines, traditions, practices, and the necessities of the moment require it to mean. Thus, if forcing non-Muslims to choose between paying the Jizyah tax or death is not compulsion or if forcing non-Muslims to suffer various forms of tyranny and neglect as second-class citizens unless they become Muslims is not compulsion, then it is very much like ex-President Clinton's famous twisting of the truth and reality, when he said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Therefore, when Muslims proclaim how loving and peaceful a religion Islam is, every non-Muslim must understand what this means- that the Islamic meanings of love, peace, tolerance, compulsion, good, evil, right, wrong, truths, lies, facts, morality, ethics, history, etc. can be bent, shaped, and molded by Muslims any way desired at any moment for any reason for the sake of defending and/or expanding Islam.

This double mentality of Muslims comes directly from Mohammed, which can be easily observed in the Koran, Hadiths, and Islamic laws. Is it really all that strange that so-called radical Islam can be so popular among Muslims? Such a double mentality is why Muslims can be joyfully convinced and can declare without any moral hesitation that in Islam non-Muslims are treated as equals to Muslims and have total freedom of religion and of speech, but only as long as non-Muslims do not start or build a church, nor preach Christ in public, nor march for human rights, nor protest for equality under the law, nor seek the same job opportunities as Muslims, nor differ with a Muslim about religion, nor openly criticize the Koran or Islam and insult Mohammed. As long as non-Muslims are silent about the tyranny, then Muslims will treat them with their versions of equity, fairness, and peace. This is why Muslims can also insist that the immorality, violence, and deception of Mohammed were actually righteous acts, good deeds of love, and spiritual fruits of a sinless soul. This is why Muslims can believe that the Islamic crusades of conquest and tyranny are a truly holy sacrament of peace and human rights to all generations. And this is why Muslims can abuse women and proudly declare how wonderful they treat Muslim women. Most Muslims genuinely believe all of this absurdity with total sincerity and absolute pride because the Koran, the Hadiths, and their correct interpretations have always taught this. Even when Muslims see the suffering, they convince themselves that the persecution of non-Muslims (and even of Muslim women and ex-Muslims) are wonderful reflections of goodness in Paradise. For this reason (and because of the forced silence of the persecuted non-Muslims and ex-Muslims in Muslim countries and of the neglect of this issue among western Christians and liberal-nihilist media sources), many westerners are duped into believing that Islam is a religion of peace, for Islam does teach peace, but only Muslims get most of the good will. These are the facts, which anyone can find out simply by reading the Koran and Hadiths, talking theology and ethics with Muslims and ex-Muslims, and by speaking to non-Muslims who have lived under Muslim domination, instead of simply listening to apologies for Islam from people who either have an agenda to promote or who are partially or totally uninformed. The tyranny that non-Muslims have experienced under Islam is just like what George Orwell wrote in his famous book about absurdity, titled Animal Farm, where the despots, who were a group of pigs that were controlling all the other animals on the farm, changed their constitution to say, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others," referring to the pigs. The absurdity of Islam is bewildering to any right-believing intellectually honest person. This is because its moral and intellectual absurdity comes from Satan, since he is the only one absurd enough to proudly maintain that Hell is morally good, righteous, and peaceful for all people and angels. Thanks to him, absurdity has also come to earth and Islam is full of it, making Muslims, and those who defend them, some of the world's greatest and most dangerous Absurdists of all time....and some of Satan's dearest followers.

Islam is nothing more or less than a successful Jimmy Jones-type religion that simply has acquired an empire and survived for 1400 years. People complain about Christian cults using tyranny and mind control. Why should anyone dismiss the reality of similar false cults beyond Christianity? Cultural, regional, and ancient acceptance and the widespread success of a belief do not necessarily prove a religion to be morally, spiritually, and/or logically valid, especially when there is suppression of free thought and oppression toward dissenters. In order for spiritual validity to be accepted, moral consistency must always be encouraged and tyranny discouraged. Islam does not follow this universal rule and it is therefore an enemy of truth, reason, and rational judgement. Hence, those who defend Islam are not people who understand human rights and universal virtues, nor do they recognize what true evil is, since they have reduced good and evil into psychological problems and/or into relativistic concepts to fit certain agendas, if Muslim or non-Muslim, for whatever reasons. They complain about people who do make moral judgements of right and wrong, good and evil, by denouncing such a mentality to be morally and mentally simplistic, because they imagine that certain issues must be "quite complex" and other issues to involve lots of "gray areas". They have forced themselves to assume that it is not intellectual to make moral judgements. However, such people are too lazy or bigoted to analyze the morality behind each of the so-called complexities and then be responsible for making overall rational moral judgements. They simply do not want to be morally responsible, so they judge people who are morally responsible and accuse them of being stupid and simplistic for not conforming to irresponsible versions of morality. But moral simplicity is not immoral, as they presume, nor is it incorrect to simply assess issues to be either right or wrong. Everything on earth is either intentionally right or wrong, and derives from sources that are either good or evil. There is no such thing as moral neutrality in any thought or action. Thus, no matter how many millions of people may be convinced that a certain religion or cult preaches peace and love, it may actually be evil. Despite what some people think, there is such a thing as dubious beliefs and fraudulent religious founders, who have duped countless people into staunchly believing in lies. This has happened throughout history around the world on many occasions, affecting millions of people. Therefore, not every religion that claims to be peaceful is actually peaceful, and not all believers of a religion can always be right about their religion's morality and ideas. It is as simple as that. So when a person looks at any religion, even Islam, the question should not be, "How can stupid people accuse it of being evil?" The question should be, "How morally consistent is it?" Then by studying its beliefs, asking its adherents morally relevant religious questions, talking to its dissenters and non-believers under its domination, and listening to its apologists and critics, one can be able to make moral judgements for or against it. Judging the validity of Islam is as simple as that.
"Reason is the mind that with sound logic prefers the life of wisdom. Wisdom, next, is the knowledge of divine and human matters and the causes of these...Now the kinds of wisdom are rational judgement, justice, courage, and self-control. Rational judgement is supreme over all of these, since by means of it reason rules over the emotions." (4 Maccabees 1:15-19, a Jewish book written before Christ and kept as Scripture by many of the ancient churches).

Islam has never allowed too much dissent for its adherents, and practically no criticism of Mohammed. So when the United Nations came along in 1948 and wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many good Muslims considered their religion and their god to be under attack. Article 18 of this declaration states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Most Muslim countries have dismissed and violated these rights every day. And so in November, 1981 the United Nations was swayed by Muslim countries to alter this cherished universal human right so as to relate to the sensitivities of Islam. Thus, the Muslims were able to coerce the United Nations to change Article 18 from saying "everyone has the right....to change his religion" to simply assert the fact that all people have a right "to have" a religion. For this reason, it is clear that the United Nations is another entity that believes that moral and human rights are not absolute truths but that they can be changed and altered whenever convenient. The United Nations therefore is hostile toward the sensitivities of Christians and of other adherents of most religions, along with basic human rights. This means that the United Nations agrees with Islam and Nihilism by accepting double standards of truth, justice, and reason. It also means that the United Nations must return to its original moral stance, and if not, it should be eliminated before such policies encourage more destruction and evil.

In addition to the United Nations giving up all credibility in peace and human rights issues, the UN has also declared that Zionism, the Jewish desire for a homeland, is racism. Regardless if or not Zionism is racism, the hatred of Jews is an actual divine command in the Koran itself; and Islam's treatment of Jews throughout history reflects the Koran's racist doctrines. Even to this day, Muslim newspapers, schools, TV, and countless other sources, private and government-run, constantly declare how all Jews are evil, deceptive, sub-human, imperialistic, etc. in the precise manner that Hitler's Nazi Germany spoke, though Israeli schools, news sources, and other venues rarely foment such negative emotions and racist remarks against Muslims. Muslim leaders, clerics, and media sources consistently call for the immediate destruction, subjugation, or annihilation of all Jews from either Israel and/or the world, unlike their Jewish counterparts. This hatred has always existed in Islam, though it accelerated in the 1800's with many massacres of Jews from Morocco to Iraq and the expulsion of millions of Jews, many more than the displaced Muslims of Palestine since 1948. This stepped-up fury against Jews is a direct cause for the rise of modern Zionism in the late 1800's. Nevertheless, the UN refuses to acknowledge Islam to be essentially racist, while at the same time condemning a peaceful Jewish sentiment for a homeland free from Islamic tyranny. If the United Nations desires to be taken seriously about racism, human rights, and peace, then it should take steps to ensure fundamental, universal morality, not seeking to undermine it. If the UN continues such absurd policies, then all civilized nations should completely separate from it and either form a different and/or separate organization or forget such a forum altogether.